t- 



I1?l 



3Fr U v , 



[IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.] 

Calendar No. 1 . 

e^TH Congress, ) SENATE. j Report 

Jfth. Session. ) { -No. 1. 



ADJUSTMENT OF TITLE TO ISLE OF PINES. 



December 11, 1922. — Ordered to be printed. 

Mr. Lodge, from the ^Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted 

the following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany Executive J, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred 
Executive J, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, a treaty between 
the United States and Cuba, signed on March 2, 1904, for the adjust- 
ment of title to the ownership of the Isle of Pines, having had the 
same under consideration, report it with the recommendation that 
the Senate advise and consent to its ratification. 

The ratification of the treaty is urged by the President in the 
following letter to the chairman: 

The White House, 
Washington, November 28, 19..'-'. 
Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Senator Lodge: I am writing to call your attention to the treaty nego- 
tiated between the Government of Cuba and that of the United States March 2, 1904, 
which has not been ratified by the Senate. This treaty relates to the relinquishment 
of all claims of title to the Isle of Pines on the part of the United Stat(S ? which possible 
claim was suggested by the language of the treaty of peace with Spain. 

I am inclosing to you herewith a review of the treaty status and our relationship 
to the Isle of Pines, as recited in a letter by the Secretary of State to Senator Mc- 
Cormick. It is manifest that this Government has no intention ever to make claim 
to any title to the Isle of Pines, and, as the Secretary says in the letter to Avhich I 
have above referred, it seems altogether desirable that the ratification of the treaty 
be made and thereby remove any possible cause of friction between the two Govern- 
ments, and put an end to any uncertainty in the minds of the inhabitants of the 
island concerning its relationship to the Government of Cuba. 
Very truly yours, 

Warren G. Harding. 
[Inclosure.] 

October 16, 1922. 

My Dear Senator McCormick: With further reference to your letter of July 28, 
addressed to the Assistant Secretary, in regard to the Isle of Pines, I beg to advise 
you as follows: 

The Isle of Pines is situated about 50 miles from the coast of Cuba, and, therefore, 
as was indicated by the Supreme Court of the United States in its opinion in the case 
of Pearcy v. Stranahan (205 U. S. 257), under the principles of international law 

23413—22 



ri799 

IBU42. 



ADJUSTMENT OF TITLE TO ISLE OF PINE? 



applicable to such coasts and shores as those of Florida, the Bahamas, and Cuba, it 
would ordinarily be regarded as an integral part of Cuba. 

Prior to 1898 the Isle of Pines was a Spanish possession, apparently governed as a 
municipal district of the Province of Habana, Cuba. 

With respect to Cuba, the joint resolution passed by the Congress of the United 
States April 20, 1898, provides (4) "That the United States hereby disclaims any 
disposition or intention to exercise sovereign jurisdiction or control over said island, 
except for the pacification thereof; and asserts the determination when that is accom- 
plished to leave the government and control of the island to its people. " (38 Stat. 
378.) 

The treaty of peace between the United States and Spain proclaimed April 11. 1899, 
makes no specific mention of the Isle of Pines, but by Article I of the treaty "Spain 
relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba,'' and by Article II, 
"Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under 
Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and to the island of Guam in the Marianas 
or Ladrones." 

During the military occupation of Cuba by the United States the Isle of Pines was 
apparently administered as a municipal district of the Province of Habana. (Report 
of Census of Cuba published by War Department in 1900.) 

When the Government of Cuba was turned over to the Cubans May 20, 1902. there 
was an exchange of communications between the military governor and the President 
of Cuba to the effect that the Isle of Pines was to continue de facto under the jurisdic- 
tion of the Government of Cuba subject to treaty arrangements as to future disposition. 

The Piatt amendment (Article VI), and Article VI of the treaty with Cuba proclaimed 
July 2, 1904, provide that the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed con- 
stitutional boundaries of Cuba, "the title thereof being left to future adjustment by 
treaty." March 2, 1904, a treaty was signed by which the United States relinquished 
all claims of title to the Isle of Pines under the said treaty of peace with Spain. The 
Senate of the United States has never consented to the ratification of this treaty. 

It therefore appears that the United States has never taken possession of the Isle 
of Pines as having been ceded by the treaty of peace with Spain, and that it has been 
uniformly governed by the Republic of Cuba since that Republic came into existence, 
the United States recognizing Cuba as rightfully exercising de facto sovereignty until 
otherwise provided for. 

In the case of Pearcy v. Stranahan, before mentioned, the court considered that 
it was justified in assuming that the Isle of Pines was always treated by the repre- 
sentatives in Cuba of the President of the United States as an integral part of Cuba. 
The court added that this was "no doubt to be expected in view of the fact that it was 
such at the time of the execution of the treaty and its ratification, and that the treaty 
did not provide otherwise in terms, "to say nothing of the general principles of inter- 
national law before mentioned." 

The political department of the Government has apparently, as indicated by the 
treaty it concluded with Cuba March 2, 1904, and its other dealings with this subject 
above referred to, taken the ground that under the treaty of peace with Spain the Isle 
of Pines was not one of the ' ' other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West 
Indies " and ceded to the United States by the treaty, but was an integral part of Cuba 
over which Spain relinquished claim to sovereignty by the treaty. In any event, 
the United States has undoubtedly indicated that it did not desire to assert any title 
to the island under the treaty of peace with Spain, but wished to quitclaim in favor of 
Cuba any shadow of title it might have under that treaty. 

It can not be doubted that in adopting this attitude the Government of the United 
States was influenced by the proximity of the island to Cuba and the consequently 
applicable principles of international law, and by the fact that the Isle of Pines had 
uniformly been administed as an integral part of Cuba. 

Referring to the suggestion on this point in the attached letter to Mr. Wall to 
Colonel Rosenfeld, it may be said that there was no private agreement or under- 
standing between the department and the Government of Cuba relative to the 
"pigeonholing" of the said treaty of March 2, 1904. 

I may add that the department considers it desirable in the interest of relations 
between the United States and Cuba that the treaty before the Senate should be 
approved. The ratification of the treaty would leave the situation with respect to 
Cuban exercise of authority over the island as it is at the present' time. Possible 
causes of friction between the two Governments would be obviated and the uncer- 
tainty in the minds of the inhabitants of the island as to its status would be removed. 

In accordance with your request, I return the papers which accompanied your 
letter under acknowledgment. 
Sincerely yours, 

Charles E. Hughes. 



W- ?2Si 



ADJUSTMENT OF TITLE TO ISLE OF PINES. 



tn 



The committee also prints as a part of its report the following 
I correspondence from Hon. Elihu Root, then Secretary of State : 

Department op State, 
Washington, January 8, 1906. 
Hon. Shelby M. Cullom, 

Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. 
Dear Senator: I send you a note of the passage in Hall's International Law, to 
which I referred in our conversation the other day, relating to the Isle of Pines. It is 
to be found on pages 124 and 125 of the fifth edition, 129 and 130 of the fourth edition, 
and for greater convenience I inclose a typewritten copy of the passage. You will 
see that it contains a very good description of the physical conditions, and that, as 
I mentioned to you, the undoubted appurtenance of the Archipielago de los Canarios, 
including the Isle of Pines, to the country called Cuba, is used as an illustration of 
the general proposition. I dare say the same thing is to be found in other writers, but 
I have not examined; I merely happened to notice this. This passage was written 
while Cuba still belonged to Spain, and undoubtedly would be accepted by inter- 
national lawyers as correctly describing the status of the Isle of Pines at the time of 
the treaty of Paris. 

Very sincerely yours, 

Elihu Root. 
[Inelosure.] 

* 

Apart from questions connected with the extent of territorial waters, which will be 
dealt vith later, certain physical peculiarities of coasts in various parts of the world, 
where land impinges on the sea in an unusual manner, require to be noticed as affect- 
ing the territorial boundary. Off the coast of Florida, among the Bahamas, along 
the shores of Cuba, and in the Pacific are to be found groups of numerous islands 
and islets rising out of vast banks, which are covered with very shoal water and either 
form a line more or less paralel with land or compose systems of their own, in both 
cases inclosing considerable sheets of water, which are sometimes also shoal and some- 
times relatively deep. The entrance to these interior bays or lagoons may be wide 
in breadth of surface water, but it is narrow in navigable water. To take a specific 
case, on the south coast of Cuba the Archipelago de los Canarios stretches from 60 
to 80 miles from the mainland to La Isla de Pinos. Its length from the Jardines 
Bank to Cape Frances is over a hundred miles. It is inclosed partly by some islands. 
mainly by banks, which are always awash, but upon which the tides are very slight. 
The depth of water is at no time sufficient to permit of navigation. Spaces along 
these banks many miles in length are unbroken by a single inlet. The water is unin- 
terrupted, but access to the interior gulf or sea is impossible. At the western end 
there is a strait 20 miles or so in width, but not more than 6 miles of channel intervene 
between two banks which rise to within 7 or 8 feet from the surface and which do 
not, consequently, admit of the passage of seagoing vessels. In cases of this sort the 
question whether the interior waters are or are not lakes inclosed within the territory 
must always depend upon the depth upon the banks and the width of the entrances. 
Each must be judged upon its own merits. But in the instance cited there can be 
little doubt that the whole Archipelago de los Canarios is a mere salt-water lake 
and that the boundary of the land of Cuba runs along the exterior edge of the banks. 
(Pp. 124, 125, Hall on International Law, 5th ed.) 



Department op State, 
Washington, November 27, 1905. 
Charles Raynard, Esq., 

President of American Club, Isle of Pines, West Indies. 
Dear Sir: I have received your letter of October 25, in which you say, "Kindly 
advise me at your very earliest convenience the necessary procedure to establish a 
territorial form of government for the Isle of Pines, West Indies, United States of 
America." 

It is no part of the duty of the Secretary of State to give advice upon such subjects. 
I think it proper, however, to answer your inquiry so far as it may be necessary to 
remove an error under which you appear to rest concerning the status of the Isle of 
Pines and your rights as residents of that island. 

There is no procedure by which you and your associates can lawfully establish a 
territorial government in that island. The island is lawfully subject to the control 



ADJUSTMENT OF TITLE TO ISLE OF I 




015 813 167 5 



and government of the Republic of Cuba, and you and your associates are bound to 
render obedience to the laws of that country so long as you remain in the island. If 
you fail in that obedience you will be justly liable to prosecution in the Cuban courts 
and to such punishment as may be provided by the laws of Cuba for such offenses as 
you commit. You are not likely to have any greater power in the future. The 
treaty now pending before the Senate, if approved by that body, will relinquish all 
claim of the United States to the Isle of Pines. In my judgment the United States 
has no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines. The treaty merely accords to Cuba what 
is hers in accordance with international law and justice. 

At the time of the treaty of peace which ended the war between the United States 
and Spain the Isle of Pines was, and had been for several centuries, a part of Cuba. I 
have no doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba, and that it is not and 
never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President 
Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to 
urge its confirmation. Nor would the rejection of the pending treaty put an end to 
the control of Cuba over the island. A treaty directly contrary to the one now pending 
would be necessary to do that, and there is not the slightest prospect of such a treaty 
being made. You may be quite sure that Cuba will never consent to give up the 
Isle of Pines, and that the United States will never try to compel her to give it upi 
against her will. 

Very respectfully, 

Elihu Root.. 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

015 813 167 5 i 






